We buried McCain's economic talking points last week. Can we do it again this week?

Yak away.

Yesterday, I quoted a well-known cable news figure as having said, "The list of things we could attach the word "-gate" to in the Bush administration is now 50 items long." I respectfully disagree - off the top of my head, I came up with 56 separate scandals.

This list is impartial, thrown together off the top of my head, which really says something about the Bush administration. It is no particular order - that would have taken too long, since my WiFi runs out at 10, and been beside the point anyway, which is to show the cumulative total of Bush's incompetence. Additionally, these are only scandals, not positions. This list takes on the Bush administration for his arrogance, incompetence, corruption, dishonesty, and disloyalty to the Constitution, not for their wrong positions or doofus moments. Thus, you'll see no GI bill, tax cuts for the rich, or SCHIP, and no pretzel choking, German backrubs, or Bushisms. Furthermore, this is just the administration, not the larger Republican Party. We're not talking about Bob Ney, or Duke Cunningham, or Don Young, or Tom DeLay (although his list would be just as long), or the Swift Boat vets, or the NRSC attacks on Max Cleland, or, or, or, or. So here's my list, and please add to it in the comments!

A H/T to randomnonviolence for also suggesting "Hugh's List of Bush Scandals," a list 368 items along, although one that contains not just shenanigans but issues, thus far broader than my own definition of scandal.

Yesterday, I posted two quotes from Keith Olbermann on the front-page. I didn't share those quotes because, as one person suggested, I wanted to rehab KO's image, but rather because I thought the quotes themselves were worth sharing, their source notwithstanding. Unfortunately, only a handful of the 98-comments (so far) discussed the substance of the quotes. The vast majority of the thread was straight KO-bashing or KO-defending.

That's a shame. My intention was to spark a discussion not about the pros and cons of Olbermann, but about the importance in journalism of understanding history and being able to discern patterns. I thought that readers would be willing to look past the source and evaluate the quotes for their own value, on their own merits. I was wrong, and so bungled the chance to talk about the importance of "connecting the dots" in journalism. My bad.

Several commenters suggested I've lost my senses for calling Olbermann a journalist. If you read my post carefully, you'll see I did no such thing. It's debatable whether or not pundits are journalists, but no one can disagree that KO is a pundit rather than a reporter. My post wasn't about Olbermann as a journalist, but his quotes on journalists. You don't have to be President to talk about the President, and you don't have to be a reporter to talk about reporters. We bloggers, of all people, should know that.

But ok, if we want a discussion about Olbermann more than we want a discussion about journalism, than a discussion about Olbermann we shall have. Like most readers here, I do think his attacks on Hillary Clinton went way over the top. I don't think that makes him sexist, especially since he was the only male to stand up to behind-the-scenes office sexual harassment during his time at ESPN, but I do agree he let his passion get the better of him. He's done this on other topics as well, and the show was better before his "special comments" became the norm. He does occasionally become quite pompous, and that is obnoxious. Nevertheless, he does not bully or yell at his guests. He does not cut their mikes off. He gets upset when they shout over one another. He argues with his producers when they ask him to cover Britney/Lindsey/kidnapping schlock, and even quit his first MSNBC gig over it. He actually calls Bush out on Constitutional abuses. How many other cable news anchors can claim any of that?

So no, he's not perfect. He's certainly not the required progressive viewing he was starting to become. He doesn't come close to touching Bill Moyers, or even Jon Stewart. I too watch him much, much less often than I used to. But to call him scum or to yell at other MyDDers who still tune in is way over the top. I didn't join those who TR'd such comments, but I believe this community is better than that.

Now, bearing all that in mind, I'd like to try again. Please, set the source aside, reflecting not on the speaker but on the words themselves, and tell me this isn't valid, tell me this isn't something every Brian Williams or Anderson Cooper shouldn't keep in mind:

When you cover a sport like baseball or football or whatever, you're here for this part of the story. You've joined it 75 years in progress or 100 years in progress. It should be the same way when you're covering the news, particularly in politics, and yet as we've seen, people in the political world now don't know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was... Part of the news is not just saying, well, this happened in the last 24 hours, but here's something that happened six weeks and there's been a development in it, you're just not reading about it, you're not hearing about it, because there's so much else to worry about it. The list, though, of things we could attach the word "-gate" to in the Bush administration is now 50 items long.

Last night, I finally got around to listening to the podcast of Bill Moyers' December interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. Now I know that, given his primary season criticisms of the Clinton campaign, Olbermann is no longer seen by everyone here as some sort of knight in shining armor. To those people I would say, I understand your anger; I feel it every time a reporter repeats the lie that Joe Biden is a plagiarist or Howard Dean a polarizing madman. However, now that the primary season is over, we should once again be thankful that SOMEONE with a cable platform is calling out Bush for his attacks on the Constitution and his incompetence.

In that spirit, I want to share two Olbermann quotes from the interview that help crystallize just what a good journalist should do, and why today's media is not representative of good journalism. This first quote is in reply to a question from Moyers about what political journalism and sports broadcasting (Olbermann's prior life) have in common. Olbermann replied that both require skepticism and an appreciation for history.

In sports reporting, it is almost assumed that you need to have some predicative ability and you have to be able to discern patterns, and also discern when somebody's telling you, "No, our shortstop's great!" and he really isn't, and what the difference between those two things are. When the results don't match up to the hyperbole, you need to be able to see that, and you need to be able to say it in some sort of informed way. When you cover a sport like baseball or football or whatever, you're here for this part of the story. You've joined it 75 years in progress or 100 years in progress. It should be the same way when you're covering the news, particularly in politics, and yet as we've seen, people in the political world now don't know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was.

This second quote came a few minutes later, and speaks to the importance of linking old news with new developments - what Olbermann calls "discerning patterns."

Part of the news is not just saying, well, this happened in the last 24 hours, but here's something that happened six weeks and there's been a development in it, you're just not reading about it, you're not hearing about it, because there's so much else to worry about it. The list, though, of things we could attach the word "-gate" to in the Bush administration is now 50 items long.

After listening to that interview, I sat down to write a list of all the Bush scandals I could think of. Olbermann was wrong - there are MORE than 50 items. I need to take some time to put the list in some sort of a coherent order, but will post it tomorrow for an open thread of add-ons.

What Olbermann calls "discerning patterns," my former journalism professor and freelance reporter Alexis Jetter calls "connecting the dots." Both are correct: the MSM's fear of repeating "old news" must die. We can't see the truth if we don't connect the past with the present, whether that past be two weeks old or forty years. Reporting the Dick Cheney censored CDC testimony to Congress means nothing if the media doesn't remind viewers that this censorship follows on the heels of similar attacks on the EPA and NASA. Connecting the dots is what Walter Cronkite did when he explained the Watergate scandal to the American people, and it's what Olbermann tries to do with his show's segment, "Bushed! Countdown's list of the top three Bush scandals you may have forgotten about because of all of the new Bush scandals." Here then is the most recent "Bushed" from July 11, guest hosted by Rachel Maddow.

From The Hill:

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) returned to the Senate Wednesday to cast the decisive vote on stalled Medicare legislation, making his first appearance in the chamber since he was diagnosed two months ago with brain cancer.

Huzzah for the bill, huzzah for Senator Reid's refusal to cave to the Republicans, and a triple huzzah for Senator Kennedy's strength and health!

Update [2008-7-9 17:13:21 by Jonathan Singer]: I'll be putting up some extended thoughts on the vote in a few minutes, but for those who haven't yet had a chance to see it, Think Progress has posted video of Kennedy's very emotional return to the Senate.

Update [2008-7-9 17:19:21 by Transplanted Texan]: The cloture vote was 69-30, so quite a number of Republicans flipped. The roll call vote is now available on Senate.gov. First Read has Kenendy's statement:

I return to the Senate today to keep a promise to our senior citizens -- and that's to protect Medicare. Win, lose or draw, I wanted to be here. I wasn't going to take the chance that my vote could make the difference. Medicare should not be a partisan issue. Illness and age know no party boundaries. The 44 million Americans who rely on Medicare to meet their health care needs are both Democrats and Republicans. Like all Americans, they have worked hard all their lives. They've raised their families. They've built our towns and cities and farmed the land. They've served in our military.

We owe them so much for the part they have played in making America a great country. So today I proudly cast this important vote for them -- a vote to keep the Medicare program strong and effective for the future.

Cross-posted from The Wayward Episcopalian.

Honor and ethics are very important to me. As I wrote on my personal blog earlier this week, the Gospel shows us that few things are more immoral than the abuse of power. When corruption scandals beset DC, I am usually very swift to condemn the accused, even if they are members of my own party - case in point, while in New Orleans, I volunteered for Karen Carter's 2006 midterm campaign to unseat Rep. William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson (D-Refrigerator).

Sometimes, however, ethics scandals are just a bunch of trumped-up hooey designed to generate headlines no matter what the personal cost, and that's exactly what we see unfolding today. The protestors, bloggers, and GOP aides trying to smear Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad right now should be ashamed. Dodd and Conrad are two of the most honorable people in Washington, DC, and I do not for an instant believe either one knowingly or purposefully did anything wrong. This is especially true of Conrad, who has been a model of honesty in the way he has handled this scandal.

Cross-posted from The Wayward Episcopalian.

In her speech following tonight's primaries in Montana and South Dakota, Hillary Clinton said that her campaign has allowed mothers to hoist their little girls up on their shoulders and say, "See? Your really can do anything!" She spoke glowingly of the many 90-year old women who went to her campaign events, women born before they had the right to vote yet who were now thrilled to watch one of their daughters nearly win the U.S. Presidency. These are true and powerful statements, and Barack Obama can say very similar things.

I am only 21. My earliest political memories are of Peter Jennings reporting from Iraq in 1991 and of asking my parents who they were going to vote for in 1992. I am, in no uncertain terms, a baby, and it gives me major pause to reflect on the realization that there are people alive today, both women and African Americans, who were born into an American society that did not welcome them. It's easy for us young people to look at Women's Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement as pages in a history book, but the fact is they aren't so distant after all. Those movements are very much alive in far too many people's memories.

And that is why tonight matters.

I didn't think I'd ever say this, but - thank God for Scott McClellan. With Thursday's Olbermann interview, tomorrow's Russert interview, and a spate of op-eds in the middle keeping this story alive, McClellan's book is the gift that keeps on giving. The more the media's Republican lens is on George W. Bush, the better off we'll be come November, and perhaps just as importantly, the Republican Party's reaction to the book is giving the mainstream media new insight into how the Bushies' minds work. Although it's nothing new to those of in the Netroots, a spate of quotes from folks like Mary Matalin and Bernard Kerik are making headlines by showing just how low the Republican elites can sink, valuing loyalty over corruption and honesty.

What first struck me when this book came out was not its "shocking" content, but White House Press Secretary Dana Perino's reaction: "Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House." Perino seems to be saying there is only one possible explanation for criticism from a former employee: they're disgruntled. It is absolutely impossible for someone to work with Bush and Co. and have any real complaints; things here are so wonderful that if you're not in bliss the whole time, there's something wrong with you. Criticism is never based on truth; the only possible logical explanation is a lack of gruntle. Right... let that speak not to the fact that these people were blinders, but to just how big those blinders are.

Of course, you expect that kind of a reaction from the White House itself; they have to defend themselves. So maybe Perino gets a pass this time. With a paycheck and job description like hers, she hardly reveals the typical Republican mindset. We can get a better handle on the party by looking to folks without current official ties - folks like Bernard Kerik, who sent out an e-mail this week calling McClellan's truth tourettes, "DISLOYAL, SICKENING AND DESPICABLE DISLOYAL, SICKENING AND DESPICABLE."

It's typical of Kerik, he of nanny trouble, abuse of power, conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud and tax fraud fame, to value loyalty (to Giuliani, to Bush, to I'm guessing Spiro Agnew) more than ethics or truth. Mary Matalin, who's under indictment for absolutely nothing, joined him, saying of McClellan's loyalty: "This will stand as the epitome, the ultimate breach of that code of honor."

So honor, apparently, does not mean fighting for the weak, telling the truth, exposing hypocrisy, bringing down the corrupt, or even keeping your zipper zipped. No, to these people, honor is sticking with the guy who put you on TV, no matter what sacrifices that entails. We haven't heard word one attacking McClellan's actual points, only his loyalty, which is why these people are unfit to run for even county dogcatcher.

But that is not to say Scott McClellan actually has honor. There is one Republican I do agree with: Bob Dole, who e-mailed McClellan to say, "There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don't have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues."

McClellan is helping us from a PR perspective, and his effect on the media and campaign may help to prevent the future from being as bad as the present. This is a good thing - but the fact of the matter is, he could have helped us keep the present from getting as bad as it is. If McClellan were just now seeing the light, I would welcome his conversion and not cry "Too little, too late!" But this is not a recent conversion. He has been shopping this book since January 2007, and was appalled at some of these abuses of power while still in the White House. There's no honor in unfailing loyalty, but there's also no honor in sitting on the truth until you can cash in, allowing the administration to keep killing for that much longer. Dole says he won't read the book, not for his anger at betrayal but for his anger at hypocrisy. That, I can respect: "If all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high-profile job."

McClellan, like 98% of Bush's second term staff, has little honor, but we should still be thankful for him. He has brought the nuts out of the woodwork, and the louder our alarm clock, the faster this nation will wake up.

And with that, we turn back for more of the RBC and campaign 2008.

Update [2008-5-31 17:16:24 by Transplanted Texan]: RandomNonviolence has a compelling comment about those who place a high value on loyalty.